alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF MINNESOTA INSUPREME COURT Al4-0924
InrePetition for Disciplinary Action against John B. Arnold, a MinnesotaAttorney, Registration No. 3190.
ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent John B. Arnold committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, forging his clients' signatures on a settlement agreement, in violation ofMinn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b).and (c). Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated forgery, a felony, and identity theft, a gross misdemeanor. The district court stayed adjudication of respondent's guilt on the aggravated forgery charge, convictedhim ofidentity theft, andplacedhimonprobation. Respondent unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, waives his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and has entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is suspension from the practice oflaw for a minimum of 1year. This court has independently**r~viewed** the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition. Based.upon all the files, records, andproceedings herein,

1IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat: 1. Respondent John B. Arnold is suspended from the practice oflaw with no righttopetition for reinstatement for a minimum of 1year; 2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18( e), RLPR, and proofofcompliance with the terms ofrespondent's criminal probation;. 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuantto Rule 

### 24, RLPR; and · 4. Ifrespondent violates his criminal probation, the Director may, after notice to respondent and an opportunity to be heard, move the court to impose additional discipline. Dated: June 26, 2014 BYTHE COURT:

Alan C. Page Associate Justice.

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Centennial
Communications Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 28, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
------------------------------------
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
November 30, 1998

21532

#### Malm v. Administrative Director of Court, State

Affirmed
November 14, 1996

18320

#### State v. Tribbey

Order No. 96-57

Affirmed
27461, 27462

#### State v. Ancheta

Vacated and Remanded
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

African Swine Fever Emergency

Response

Last Modified: 

Print

The materials on this page are specific to African swine fever (ASF). You can use

these tools and resources to prepare for and respond to an outbreak of this disease.

We also offer general materials that apply not only to ASF, but other foreign animal

pests and diseases as well. To view these materials, visit Foreign Animal Disease

Preparedness and Response.

Planning and Preparing for ASF: Quick Briefing 

ASF Response Plan: The Red Book 

The Red Book Powerpoint 

Overview of the ASF Response Plan: The Red Book 

ASF Response and Policy Information

Learn more about our response to an ASF outbreak.

Strategy and Policy

Filter Documents

Reset Filter(s)

▾
Updated Document

Meat Harvest Facility Templates

Filter Documents

Reset Filter(s)

▾

Updated Document

Finance and Administration Processes

Filter Documents

Reset Filter(s)

▾

Updated Document

Control Area Permit Criteria—Continuity of Business

Filter Documents

Reset Filter(s)

▾

Updated Document

Zones and Areas

ASF Zones and Areas for Domestic Swine—Ready Reference Guide (July 2020)

ASF Zones and Areas for Feral Swine—Ready Reference Guide (July 2020)

Depopulation, Disposal, and Virus Elimination

Depopulation, Disposal, and Decontamination Guidance - Option Matrices and

Considerations (236.75 KB) (November 2019)

ASF Resources

Find detailed resources concerning an ASF outbreak.

Carcass Management Dashboard 

ASF Ready Reference Guides 

Preparedness Plans
Secure Pork Supply

Other Resources and Guidance Documents

Learn About African Swine Fever

Protect Our Pigs

ASF: Overview (262.77 KB)

ASF: Don't Spread This Deadly Disease (3.12 MB)

ASF: Know the Signs and Symptoms (74.49 KB)

ASF: Protect Your Farm Using Biosecurity (298.49 KB)

ASF: Don't Bring It Home (189.34 KB)

European Commission ASF Website

Pork Checkoff Foreign Animal Disease Resources

World Organisation for Animal Health: ASF Information

Related Links

Emergency Management Response System 2.0

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Emergency Response

Foot-and-Mouth Disease Emergency Response

New World Screwworm Emergency Response

Virulent Newcastle Disease Emergency Response

National Veterinary Stockpile

Veterinary Services Training and Exercise Program
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2018

No. 04-18-00253-CV

JC FODALE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and Mickey Hunt,

Appellants

v.

Jenny HENNES,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI12710

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ response to this court’s May 25, 2018 order has been filed. The response 

shows appellants have paid, and the trial court clerk has received appellants’ payment, for the 

preparation of the clerk’s record. We therefore order Bexar County District Clerk, Donna Kay 

McKinney, to file the clerk’s record by July 12, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM AMOS CRAMER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 246 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 300 

On the passing of Joseph Robinette Biden, III. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2015 

Mr. CARNEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

On the passing of Joseph Robinette Biden, III. 

Whereas Joseph Robinette ‘‘Beau’’ Biden, III, born in Wilmington, Delaware and a graduate of the University of 

Pennsylvania and Syracuse University law school, served 

our country as an attorney in the Department of Justice 

for seven years, including assisting the nation of Kosovo 

in rebuilding their criminal justice system; 

Whereas Beau Biden served his beloved State of Delaware for 

eight years as Attorney General; 

Whereas Beau Biden joined the Army in 2003 at the age of 

34, rose to the rank of major in the Delaware Army National Guard’s Judge Advocate General Corps, deployed 

to Iraq in 2008 and received the Bronze Star for his 

service; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 300 IH 

Whereas Beau Biden leaves behind a beloved wife, Hallie, 

and two children, Natalie and Hunter; and 

Whereas Beau Biden was the eldest son of the former Senator from Delaware and current Vice President of the 

United States and President of the United States Senate, 

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives has 

2 heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announce3 ment of the untimely death of Joseph Robinette Biden, 

4 III. 

5 Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representa6 tives communicate this resolution to the Senate and trans7 mit a copy thereof to the family of the Vice President of 

8 the United States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
24738

#### State v. Goodin

Affirmed
27720

#### State v. Asam

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of the Application of A. Dierks & Co. Inc., Petitioner, against Henry A. Cohen, as Director of the Bureau of Contracts of the Department of Public Works of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

March 4, 1959.

*Weidenbaum & Krein*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Thomas Burke*and *John F. Emiel*of counsel), for Henry A. Cohen, as Director, and another, respondents.

*Konheim, Ealpern & Wolf*for Glens Falls Insurance Company, respondent.

Donald S. Taylor, J.

This petition, the allegations of which must be conceded to be true upon a motion to dismiss it as a matter of law for its failure to state facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to the relief which is sought, is sufficient. The question here presented was expressly left open in *Psaty*v. *Duryea*(306 N. Y. 413, 420). The determination against the claim of mistake by the petitioner as a bidder for a State contract allegedly arbitrarily and capriciously arrived at by the State officials in my judgment is reviewable under the certiorari provisions of article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. *(Matter of Fink*v. *Cole,*1 N Y 2d 48, 52; *Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co.*v. *Bohlinger,*308 N. Y. 174, 183, motion for reargument denied 308 N. Y. 810; *Matter of Rumsey Mfg. Corp.*[Corsi], 296 N. Y. 113,118, motion for reargument denied 296 N. Y. 857; *374*Matter of Newbrand*v. *City of*Yonkers, 285 N. Y. 164, 174-175; *Matter of Schwab*v. *McElligott,*282 N. Y. 182; *Matter of McCall Corp.*v. *Gerosa,*2 A D 2d 358.) Accordingly, the respondent State officials’ cross motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to section 1293 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice is denied with leave to them to serve an answer within 10 days after the service upon the Attorney-General of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry thereof.

Submit order.
# C_2012326EN.01020101.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

PROTOCOL (No 27)

ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,

HAVE AGREED that:

To this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---
#### Ingrid Taylor, Plaintiff, *v.*Long Island Railroad Company et al., Defendants.

City Court of the City of New York, Bronx County,

January 7, 1959.

*Conboy, Hewitt, O’Brien & Boardmam*for defendant.

*Feldman & Pollak*for plaintiff.

Lawrence J. Peltin, J.

Defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company, moves pursuant to rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the cause of action stated therein did not accrue within the time limited by law for its commencement,

. The accident, subject of this action, occurred on November 6, 1955. The summons, commencing this action was *“*served ” on November 6, 1958. Section 491 of the Civil Practice Act bars an action for personal injuries not commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. The defendant herein denies proper service of the summons upon it as required by section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. Subsequently, however, the ■defendant interposed a general appearance.

Plaintiff contends that in serving a notice of general appearance, the defendant waived any and all objections to service of the- summons and jurisdiction of the court.

*45It has been previously held that where the service of the summons was initially invalid, a subsequent general appearance did not validate such service, but did have the effect of constituting personal service of the summons as of the date upon which the notice of appearance was served. *(Guilford*v. *Brody,*237 App. Div. 726.) Thus for the purpose of the Statute of Limitations the service oE a notice of general appearance did not relate back in point of time to the date of the improper service. Nor does section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act, which prescribes the statutory procedure for raising jurisdictional objections affect the rule. Section 237-a merely states that a waiver of the objection may occur if a special appearance on a motion to vacate is not made but it does not have the effect of validating the service retroactively.

Ordinarily the matter would be remitted for a hearing on the question of the validity of the service in accordance with the usual practice of examining witnesses. However, under the circumstances herein the court is constrained to find that service upon the station master was not service upon a person designated in section 229 of the Civil Practice Act to receive such service and therefore the service was invalid and void. *(Commissioners of State Ins. Fund*v. *Singer Sewing Mach. Co.,*281 App. Div. 867.)

Accordingly the alleged service being invalid and jurisdiction having been obtained only upon service of the notice of general appearance, the defense the Statute of Limitations is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s claim and the motion dismissing the complaint is granted.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Senator Jack Miller Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Black Walnut

Year
    1965

Location
      
Capitol Square, N.W.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text on the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Commemorative Tree

*Juglans nigra*
(Black Walnut)

To Honor Senator Jack Miller

May 3, 1965 Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Bumanglag

23930

01/24/2002

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit









345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154-0037




Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013
Attention:  Richard Rivera




May 31, 2018


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Re: Extension of Maturity Date


Reference is made to the Five Year Competitive Advance and Revolving Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of September 29, 2011 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified prior to the date hereof, the “Credit Agreement”) among Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Borrowing Subsidiaries, the lenders parties thereto (the “Lenders”), certain Agents, Citibank, N.A., as an Administrative Agent, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as an Administrative Agent.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement.


Pursuant to Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement, the Company hereby requests that the Lenders extend the Maturity Date in effect on the date hereof (i.e., October 1, 2021) to the first anniversary of such Maturity Date, such that the extended Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement will be September 30, 2022.  This letter shall constitute an “Extension Letter” as referred to in Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement.




	
	
	Very truly yours,
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

	By: /s/ Jeffrey Galik
Name:  Jeffrey Galik
Title:    Senior Vice President and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   462
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,575)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,332)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 39856 (f rev)

Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER Michael J. WERMUTH ) Airman First Class (E

- 3 ) ) U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Special Panel

This case is before the court for a second time. In an earlier opinion, we
determined the convening authority had failed to take action on the sentence as required by Executive Order 13,825, § 6(b), 83 Fed. Reg. 9889, 9890 (8 Mar. 2018), and Article 60, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) , 10 U.S.C. § 860 ( Manual for Courts

- Martial

, United States (2016 ed.)), * and we remanded Appellant’s case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for corrective action

. See United States v. Wermuth

, No. ACM 39856, 2021 CCA LEXIS
378 , at *7

– 8 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 Jul. 2021). The case was re

- docketed with the court on 17 September 2021.

The re

- docketed record of trial contains a corrected e ntry of j udgement (EoJ), dated 7 September 2021. The corrected EoJ contains a list of attachments, including “Corrected Convening Authority Decision on Action, dated 31 August 2021.” However, the re

- docketed record of trial contains no such attachment. Instead, where this document should appear, there is an 8 September
2021 corrected “ Convening Authority Decision on Action ” for a different appellant’s case

. In accordance with Rule for Courts

- Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(b)(8), the record of trial shall contain “[a]ny action by the convening authority . . . .” A superior competent authority may return the record of trial to the military judge for
correction

, R.C.M. 1112(d)(2), and this court may order additional proceedings in a case when warranted, see Article 66(f)(3), UCMJ , 10 U.S.C. § 866( f)(3).

Accordingly it is by the court on this 1st day of April, 2022

, ORDERED:

* Unless otherwise noted, all references in this order to the U CMJ and Rules for Courts

Martial are to the Manual for Courts

- Martial

, United States (2019 ed.).United States v. Wermuth

, No. ACM 39856 (f rev)

2 Pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d)(2) and Article 66(f)(3), UCMJ, the record of
trial in this case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary

, to resolve a substantial issue with the completeness of the record of trial

, due
to the incorrect convening authority’s decision on action memorandum being placed in Appellant’s record of trial.

The record of trial will be returned to the court no t later than 22 April
202 2

, for completion of appellat e review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866.

If the ROT can not be returned to the court by 22 April 2022 , the Government will inform the court in writing no later than 22 April 202 2 of the status of compliance with this order.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
February 28, 2005

24636

#### State v. Manuel

Affirmed